Case at a Glance

In a case balancing the benefits of a weapon in the drug war and the rights of the accused, the Court will decide whether judges can increase the prison sentences of defendants who were not specifically indicted for possessing narcotics in a quantity for which the law allows enhanced penalties. The U.S. government calls the greater sentences handed down in these circumstances "harmless error;" defense attorneys call them a violation of constitutional due process.

• Previewed by Steve Lash, a Potomac, Md., lawyer who has written extensively on the U.S. Supreme Court for numerous publications.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

To encourage low-income rural housing, the Farmer's Home Administration provides low-interest mortgage loans in exchange for restricting the uses to which borrowers can put the property and the amount of rent they can charge. Under the original terms of their loan contracts, borrowers could prepay these loans at any time and thereafter be relieved of those restrictions. The petitioners in this case challenge the government's assertion that legislation passed after the contracts were signed can now bar landlords from prepaying their loans.

• Previewed by Lucia A. Silecchia, an associate professor of law at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

During a routine warrantless and suspicionless search of bus passengers, one officer remained at the front of the bus - although without physically blocking the exit - while another asked two passengers for consent to search their bags and persons. The passengers consented, and the officer discovered that they were carrying cocaine. The question presented is whether the passengers' consent to the search was voluntary.

• Previewed by Ian Heath Gershengorn, a partner with Jenner & Block, LLC in Washington, D.C.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has held that a well-founded lawsuit may not be enjoined as an unfair labor practice even if it would not have been filed "but for" the plaintiff's desire to retaliate against the defendant for exercising rights protected by federal labor legislation. Thus the National Labor Relations Board may only enjoin improperly motivated suits that also lack a reasonable basis. This case asks when the NLRB can impose liability on an employer for filing a losing retaliatory lawsuit.

• Previewed by Jay E. Grenig, a professor of law at Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Wisc.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In 1995, Alabama prison officials allegedly tied prisoner Larry Hope to a hitching post with his arms nearly head-high for seven hours. Hope sued several prison guards, contending they had violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The Eleventh Circuit held that the guards were entitled to qualified immunity from suit because there weren't any other cases with "materially similar facts." The Supreme Court will now decide whether this standard is too restrictive for civil rights plaintiffs.

• Previewed by David L. Hudson, an attorney with the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court must decide whether a corporation chartered under the laws of a foreign territory but subject to the sovereignty of another foreign country qualifies as a "citizen or subject of a foreign country" for purposes of permitting U.S. courts to exercise "alienage jurisdiction" under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2).

• Previewed by Mary Phelan D'Isa, a professor of law at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Mich.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Restaurants are required to pay FICA tax on their employees' wages, including tips. Since restaurant employers do not handle the tips themselves, they must rely on their employees' reports of tip income to determine their share of the tax. In this case, the employees reported fewer tips than were shown on customer credit charge slips. The question now is whether the IRS can tax an aggregate estimate of the tip income based on the average tip rates on those charge slips.

• Previewed by Theresa L. Schulz, an employment lawyer in Lake Elmo, Minn.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In the 2000 case Apprendi v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court held that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." In Arizona however, Timothy Stuart Ring was sentenced to death by a judge, based on facts not presented to his jury. His case thus presents the question of whether Arizona's capital sentencing scheme violates Apprendi, and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

• Previewed by Kathy Swedlow, deputy director of the Innocence Project and a visiting professor at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Mich.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The regulation of towing companies is a federal prerogative, except when it comes to safety and non-consensual tows. In this case, the United States Supreme Court must decide whether safety regulations promulgated by local governments are enforceable.

• Previewed by Robert M. Jarvis, a professor of law at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In this disability rights case, the Supreme Court will consider whether federal laws give plaintiffs an implied cause of action to collect punitive damages against cities when Congress has not explicitly stated such a right. Specifically, the justices will weigh whether the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act permit disabled residents to collect punitive damages from cities that discriminate in public programs, activities or services.

• Previewed by Michael Kurs, an attorney who practices in the areas of health care, administrative law, and litigation in the Hartford, Conn., office of Pullman & Comley, LLC.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In 1974 Congress enacted the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (1994). The law gives students a right to privacy in their education records. In some cases injured persons have been allowed to use federal laws like FERPA to sue for money damages using an old civil rights remedy called section 1983. In Gonzaga, the Court must decide whether a student can enforce the provisions of FERPA by suing a private university for damages under section 1983.

• Previewed by Bernard James, a professor of law at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, Calif.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In this case the Supreme Court will consider whether the government must provide exculpatory information, including impeachment evidence, to a defendant before she decides to accept a plea bargain. The justices will also weigh whether prosecutors can require a defendant to waive her right to exculpatory evidence as a condition for accepting a plea bargain.

• Previewed by Alan Raphael, an associate professor of law at Loyola University Chicago School of Law in Chicago, Ill.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision